Fairness is Not Dead

From NewsMax 26 Feb. 2009 by Jim Meyers:

"The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved an amendment banning reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that would threaten conservative talk radio.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina attached the amendment, called the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to a bill giving the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. It passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11"

[However...]

"Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois also won approval for an alternate amendment ordering the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership "diversity." It passed by a vote of 57 to 41."

What's worse is that these amendments aren't part of a Bill about the FCC, or use of radio waves, or some other media or broadcasting related bill. It's part of Bill dealing with giving Washington D.C. representation in congress.


So is the Fairness Doctrine really dead, or was it merely re-named?


From the Free Press Fairness Doctrine debate a "distraction" By Julian Sanchez 25 Feb. 2009:

"The new paper rejects the idea of a "political conspiracy" behind the renewed push for localism, noting that no censorship is involved because "no 'balance' of competing views is necessary, just attention to local concerns by the broadcaster licensed to use the local public airwaves to act as a public trustee of the community." But the 2007 paper argued that conservative programming was disproportionately prominent precisely because "the removal of ownership limits created artificial economies of scale for syndicated programming (dominated by conservative talk)" and because the erosion of "policies fostering local responsiveness" had facilitated a "move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming." (Exactly what makes these economies of scale "artificial" is unclear.)"


"In his book "The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, and the First Amendment," former CBS president Fred Friendly quoted Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Johnson: "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." President Richard Nixon also instructed his staff to use the doctrine as a whip against those attacking his Vietnam policies." - Politics and the Fairness Doctrine by Robert Zelnick 7 Mar 2009


Clearly there are those who wish to see more "Fairness" in the media; however, I've found the notion of how fair our radio waves, TV broadcasts and print media are, to be more an issue of opinion and biase rather then fact. After all, the whole notion of Conservative vs. Liberal, Left vs. Right, or something in between tends to change based on an overall consensus.

All my conservative friends are always complaining about how liberal the media is. All of my Liberal friends are always complaining about how conservative the media is. So which is it? Do we really want to the government passing legislation, holding congressional hearing, and threatening the operators license of our favorite radio station because they failed to mention someone else's obscure point of view on one particular topic?

Certainly that wouldn't happen would it? Well it actually already has happened, when the Fairness Doctrine what enforced by the FCC back in the 50's and 60's. During that same time McCarthyism was also used to destroy many otherwise innocent people's lives. Do we really want that happening again? Thanks to Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, we just might.

- Posted by Spaldam




It didn't work for Japan, so why will it work for us?

Another "stimulus" bill is about to be passed, and once again I find myself wondering why they don't just give every tax payer in America a 4-6 thousand dollar bonus on their tax returns this year. That would likely do more to help the little people then a law laced with things like a government healthcare plan that lays the foundation for government controlled "Universal healthcare" that will instruct your doctor as to weather or not you're worth charging your insurance company for a much needed procedure. Not to mention it would give the money to the people who's children are going to have to eventually pay it back one way or another.

Is this stimulous package really even needed? Obama says we are as bad off as it was in during the Great Depression, yet today we have less then a third the unemployment rate as was seen during the 1930s. Though that's still close to as many people (a difference of about 2 million people), it's still only up a few percentage points over what it was a year ago, and still much less then it was in the 1980's. Certainly it's hard for those who have lost their jobs, but its a far cry from the days of the Great Depression; but that information doesn't seem to have reach President Obama's ears as is evident with all his negativity towards the economy.

The vast majority of us are still working hard, doing our jobs, and still wishing the government would, stay out of our lives and let us keep more of our hard earned money to pay for the rising costs of energy, education, and overall general costs of living. This recession we are in, is actually helpful to those of us who are now in a good position to go buy that heavily discounted new car, or to enjoy the bargain shopping we saw at Christmas time.

Will this so called "stimulus" package really help? The New York Times recently published a piece called "Japan’s Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson" by Martin Fackler who states:
"In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office. The spending peaked in 1995 and remained high until the early 2000s, when it was cut amid growing concerns about ballooning budget deficits. More recently, the governing Liberal Democratic Party has increased spending again to revive the economy and the party’s own flagging popularity.
In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations."
I agree... Spending money on government social programs will not fix the economic situation we are in, and may actually make it worse via huge government debts and potential inflation if all that money the Federal Reserver is "printing" eventually gets pumped out into the economy.

What will help? How about re-instating may of the Banking regulations un-done under the watch of the Clinton and Bush administrations, and cleaning up the financial mess that de-regulation caused (for which we've already passed a huge spending bill to do - and yet they still haven't used it to do what they originally said they would use it for).

If you gave someone a lot of money to do something you felt would help you, and they went and spent it on something else, would you give them more money just a few months later when they came asking for it? And yet, we the people voted to keep the Democrats in control of Congress (that's right, they have been in control of congress for the last 2 years). Go figure...


- Posted by Seth Hollist

Jews, Muslims, and Mormons singing together

Faiths Join for Musical Tribute in Salt Lake Tabernacle - LDS Newsroom

"A children’s choir representing both the Jewish and Muslim faiths joined other performers in sharing their common beliefs during the Interfaith Musical Tribute to the Human Spirit held at the Tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. The concert, a culminating event in a seventh annual, weeklong celebration of religious harmony and understanding sponsored by the Salt Lake Interfaith Roundtable, filled the historic building with the sounds of bells, bagpipes, drums, chants and choirs representing more than 15 faith groups and hosted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."


"The Salt Lake Interfaith Roundtable was established in 1999, in conjunction with the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and under the umbrella of the Olympic Charter requirements to provide “religious support for athletes and their families.”"

Full story here....

- Posted by S.J. Hollist

Lincon vs. JFK

http://news.upickreviews.com/featured/10-things-abraham-lincoln-and-jfk/comment-page-1/#comment-1379

- Posted by Spaldam

Enumerated Powers Act & The 10th Amendment

Arizona State Legislature HCR2024 - sovereignty; tenth amendment.
The 10th Amendment is the most over looked amendment in the U.S. Constitution based on laws passed by the U.S. Congress over the last century.  Arizona and New Hampshire appear to have started figuring it out, how soon before the rest of the country does too?  Well, actually an number of ther states have already passed such resolutions.  According to the New Hampshire resolution this includes: Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia.  Places I find to usually be more accepting of larger and more liberal government.


Both resolutions point out that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Basically this means that in order for the U.S. Congress to pass a law, there must be something within the U.S. Constitution that allows them to do so.  This is why I'm in favor of John Shadegg's 'Enumerated Powers Act'.

What laws have been passed over the last century that violate the constitution?

Let's start with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  It forced people to accept a private entities bank notes as legal tender, going against what the constitution says in article ?? section ?? that it's the job of Congress to coin money and set standards.  I don't think the Federal Reserver would be unconstitutional if it wasn't for the Legal Tender laws surrounding it.  Of course we'd have a very different financial structure in this country if that were true.  I'm not sure the Federal Reserver, nor the U.S. Governments current money creation and spending sprees would survive under that kind of a structure.  On the other hand would the even be necessary at that point?

Where in the constitution does it give the U.S. government the right to administer social services such as Social Security, Medicare, or educational bills like No Child Left Behind? Simply put, it doesn't.  Although it does give the power to congress to set standards and provide oversight, it certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate to the states how to go about providing those services.  Not to mention the $53 Trillion dollars those services are projected to cost over the next few decades (could this by why the Fed want's to inflate the money supply - so they can out grow the problem threw inflation).

And these are just a few examples...


- Posted by Seth Hollist